lusterniafandomcom-20200216-history
Report 283
Report #283 Skillset: Cooking Skill: New Org: Serenguard Status: Rejected Oct 2009 Furies' Decision: We do not find this to be necessary Problem: The defense to hunger centered attacks requires that significant quantities of food be kept in inventory. The problem is, even preserved, these decay much more rapidly than vials, and wind up being more "random crap" laying around your inventory, as well an unnecessary headache to upkeep. Solution #1: Replace the removed construct skill in cooking with a new one- ration bars (or power bars, or whatever), which have a vial-like decay time associated with them naturally, and have a goodly number of "charges" to them before they are consumed (25+). Make them take a significant quantity or goods, or even a bit of power to make, such that their cost reflects their value. Solution #2: Similar to the above, make some sort of food item that is able to be put in the rift. Solution #3: Give an existing cure the additional ability to reduce hunger. This solution is least favored due to the law of unintended consequences. Player Comments: ---on 10/10 @ 16:16 writes: Solution #1 sounds neat, actually. I'd support that ---on 10/11 @ 04:34 writes: Preserved food can last as long as protection and healing scrolls. I dont know why a combatant wouldnt carry con or dex infused platters with them anyway. If people cant be bothered to stay prepared then they have only themselves to blame. Until we know how report 255 turns out, this is kinda premature regardless. ---on 10/11 @ 15:46 writes: I kinda like solution ---on 10/11 @ 15:47 writes: Oops. I kinda like solution #1, although they should only offer satiation and not be able to be imbued with con/dex buffing, IMO. ---on 10/11 @ 21:15 writes: I don't want to see Lusternia get in the habit of trading creativity for convenience especially when it is not needed. The introduction of Super-mega- power-bars would do just that, eliminating the market for the vast majority of the cooking skill. ---on 10/13 @ 04:18 writes: I think, if this had any impact on the market, energybars would increase the market to mid- to high-end combatants. I would suggest that the commodity cost be higher than regular food, though, to encourage combatants to use regular food. Solutions 1 and 2 look good. ---on 10/13 @ 16:57 writes: I still think this is just a wrongheaded direction to take. Since this is the second attack in as many months from the forests to hunger attrition, something really only viable in Magnagorian guilds and a central aspect of the Cacophony, making the tactic useless is not the best way to address it. If people dont like it then offer alternatives. Nerfing it into the ground without any trade off is the opposite of trying to find balance. Id be happy to trade it off for something, it is unreliable and not effective in group combat. This report has -very- real combat implications that people seem to be skipping over. ---on 10/13 @ 23:35 writes: What you're failing to see, Llandros, is that Hunger attrition has been debated for awhile now. I just don't think anyone has come around to actually offering a solution for it until now. I support Mirami's comment on the commodity cost being higher. If this effects Cacophony combat so drastically, which I don't believe it does, then this will give them more room for envoys in the future. ---on 10/13 @ 23:36 writes: Not to mention, your offense shouldn't wholly be based on something unavoidable like hunger attrition. ---on 10/14 @ 15:21 writes: Cacophony hunger attrition only hits people who can hear and arent captivated by another bard. It can take 3 to 9 minutes, depending on various defenses, to come into play (for even 3 minutes of constant exposure it requires 23 perfectly timed blanknotes). It is completely cured by platters that can be produced for as little as 20 to 60 gold per. Platters that can be made to last over 60 irl days (longer than magic scrolls). What you fail to see is that lazy combatants dont justify envoy reports just because they are the -only- group of people hunger attrition works against. ---on 10/15 @ 15:57 writes: Not so much against the idea itself, but it seems kind of redundant with the baskets/food preservation mechanics we already have. You can combine those to make platters last longer than scrolls, which everyone maintains without complaint. Indeed, some people do the same for food without problems; in group combat I can and do predict with almost complete certainty which of my enemies I can rely on hunger for because of their neglect, a good example being Krellan. Krellan who turns off his autosipper while bashing, Krellan who wouldn't spend 100 gold for a platter for a 300 credit wargames, and Krellan for whom I have only manly love in my heart. We used to have something like your solution 2/3, namely that riftable spices were usable to cure hunger, but that was seen fit to be removed. ---on 10/16 @ 16:16 writes: I'm afraid I have to state that your information is false, Llandros. From full hunger, it took only four or five ticks to bring me down to starving to death from Narsrim. Which is about a minute of straight ticks. ---on 10/17 @ 05:17 writes: In testing with Narsrim it takes at -least- 15 ticks to make someone go from completely full to starving to death, which puts it right around the 2.5 to 3 minutes range. At this point I am going to have to stick by my statement. ---on 10/18 @ 14:31 writes: In my opinion, Ceren, it's more because that you need to stock a "lot" of food to use it as a cure mechanism, and it is significantly more expensive than other foods. It's being compared to the decay time of scrolls, but you only really need one scroll of each type at a time. The report appears to be meant to address that by having a higher cost for a single item so you wouldn't use it for a one-off hunger satiation, but you would have access to something with numerous "charges" (like a scroll, as keeps getting mentioned) when you need it. Either it's meant to be a cure, in which case it should be relatively easy to carry around a cure (especially without getting forced to eat it all the time at the beginning of a fight, assuming you have it outside of a container), or it's not-- in which case, hunger attrition is flawed. Pick one, please. ---on 10/19 @ 15:21 writes: Hunger attrition was envoyed and we are still awaiting a decision. This report is an end run around fairness and balance. Hunger attrition only works on the lazy or ignorant. This report effectively kills it while offering nothing in return. Necroscream is based on plagues and hunger. We have the best buff songs and the tankyest spec build to keep us going to pull it off and one of our 5 plagues deals with hunger as well. You are trying to trash a signature element of a guild and telling them they can envoy a replacement later. This report is out of line and a waste of time until report 255 comes out and we can see what, if any, steps should be taken by those who find carrying food with them to be debilitating and game breaking. ---on 10/22 @ 15:03 writes: Hunger attrition was -not- envoyed. The unconscienceness effect was envoyed, and is 'guaranteed to be approved' according to you. Hunger attrition and exhaustion attrition are one of the biggest issues in combat as of right now, and I believe this report does well in addressing them. What you could envoy is that one of your song effects lessens the effect that these items have on curing hunger, or perhaps neutralizes it sometimes like a stupidity effect and I'd be fine with that. ---on 10/22 @ 18:35 writes: I offered up several compromises in report 255 when people brought up their objections. Because of that I don't know how it will turn and until I know exactly how that report comes down I not going to simply sit by while people take swipes at a theoretical situation that could negatively impact my guild, nor will I volunteer to go a month without an important aspect of our offensive abilities. ---on 10/30 @ 12:35 writes: Llandros, you first say it doesnt matter, that prepared combatants cure hunger easily. Then youre calling it an endrun around balance and name calling. Youre not even making a consistent argument here. Heres the secret- this report doesnt impact 255 at all. This report doesnt change the core of hunger attrition balance, at all. This report doesnt impact abilities that stop eating, at all. This report doesnt nerf abilities that cause hunger, at all. This report, is pure and simple, about streamlining the acquisition of a cure to a certain kind of attack. Were all about streamlining recently, and this fits the bill. Its a report that reduces pointless tedium. It literally cant impact hunger attrition balance, because it isnt attempting to change any mechanic regarding the cure itself. It makes it more straightforward (not even less costly) to obtain a cure for a certain type of attack. ---on 10/30 @ 17:00 writes: Akui, your statements are disappointingly inaccurate. Being prepared is not difficult but making being prepared -completely- effortless with 25 meal power bars or rift-able food makes the tactic pointless. Getting gold is not difficult and is not a realistic barrier. ---on 10/31 @ 02:15 writes: Which, if true, inherently means that this change cannot be "an endrun around balance". Solution 1 is streamlining, making a cure easier to obtain and keep, without impacting skills associated with hunger. Which is exactly what we want. ---on 10/31 @ 16:15 writes: Agree with Akui's comments, both of them ---on 10/31 @ 23:10 writes: Akui, your arguments are like saying reducing the eq on cleanse isn't a nerf to sap or ectoplasm. Boosting the cure diminishes the ailment. Why is that confusing you? This is an end run exactly because of that claim and that nothing is being offered to balance it out. You do not like hunger so you attack it from the rear and claim the high road. Thanks, but no thanks.